It's a disgrace that Women only have to say they fear for their safety without any evidence and the Father is treated like a criminal without any hope of seeing his Children.
Please read the story this morning about Darcy & Chloe Conley two beautiful children who died in 60 deg heat strapped in their car seats. The mother a drug addict known to the police & child safety was responsible. The Father could not have custody of the children because the mother made a complaint of Domestic Violence.
A sad loss of two innocent kids , the mother should be charged but will no doubt be treated very leniently and the feminists will downplay the story . They will try to protect the lie that children are safer with the mother.
It is hard to believe but true that all this woman had to do to get sole custody was make a complaint of domestic violence, which was I bet not even true, or greatly exaggerated.
The DV laws in all states now allow a woman to get DV orders without providing any evidence only that she fears that at some later date her partner may become violent.
Women caught onto this really quickly and now abuse the law and use it as a weapon.
Yesterday in the Brisbane Court Judge Appelgarth gave this mother 9 year sentence with time served she will be eligible for parole in 2024, this is about four and a half years for killing her babies. The judge had the option to give her 10 years where she would of had to serve 80% of her time. He stated he chose not to as she had a better chance of rehabilitation with a lesser sentence. The news hardly even mentioned the case, there was no candle light vigil for the babies, no outrage from Katrina Carol police Commissioner, no screaming out loud from anyone. Unfortunately all I saw was the judge comment how drugs were the reason why the babies were locked in the car.
As usual when a mother kills her kids she gets off lightly , the tragedy is that if the kids had been in the care of the father they would still be alive, why isn't the media making a big story about this issue?
The Family Court judge who gave custody to this woman is largely responsible and if we had a modern justice system with full accountability for all judicial officers then this judge would be on trial, in the same way a doctor could be accused of malpractice if his actions caused a death .
And for this judge to blame the drugs is wrong for this gave the woman an excuse, she is an adult and it was her decision to take the drugs , very irresponsible for a person with 2 small children .
Feminism has created young women with no sense of responsibility for their actions and comments like this judge made do not help.
A similar case happened in WA , a woman was given custody to her 2 small girls even though the father protested and showed evidence that the woman was not mentally stable, the court did not listen but he was right, the girls were killed by the mother .
I don't think comments are open on your spectator article yet. I will comment when I get the chance. I spent an extra seven or eight years in a dead marriage because I knew that the family law situation would simply screw me. The financial workover would have been one thing but to lose the day-to-day contact with my kids would have been soul destroying. I managed to hang on long enough to get my youngest to 16 years old before she dumped me. I can only imagine how devastating it is for Dads who are sliced out of their kids lives when the kids are young. I was lucky, in a way.
If anyone reading this has a subscription to Spectator Australia, can you please urgently post a comment under my article, which has just been published? We need to impress on readers just how many families will be affected by these drastic changes to family law. https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/a-return-to-winner-takes-all-custody-battles/
Years ago, Attorney Gloria Allred used every media outlet at her disposal to destroy the reputation of a young man. The young man in question had impregnated a young woman who worked for his family restaurant. He wanted to be part of the baby's life. The mother had the opportunity to attend a prestigious university on the east coast - might have been Harvard. Allred used every tool to paint a picture of a low class individual because, Good God, he was only an employee of a family restaurant. Meanwhile, the woman was painted us this virtuous young woman with so much ahead of her. At the time in California you had to get a court order to take children out of state if the other parent opposed it. Allred argued in courts, and the media, that of course she should be allowed to take the baby with her to the east coast even thought it would deny the ability for the young man to truly interact with his child. I wrote a letter to the LA Times, which I canceled long ago, stating that if the young woman was intelligent enough to get into Harvard, she surely could get into a university in California which has many top schools, and that should be the compromise. It was pure selfishness on the part of the young woman, but she was young and that is normal. However, to have an attorney go after and destroy the young man in the media was unforgivable. I stopped referring myself as a feminist ever since.
Mention is made of children's SAFETY which is what this is all about, but haven't we gone too far trying to protect children .
Children today are so overprotected that it is making them neurotic, they are wrapped in cotton wool, not allowed to take even the slightest risk.
Kids used to ride their bikes to school even in primary school, now most are chauffeur driven by parents, kids used to swim in lakes and rivers, climb trees etc. Now this is deemed to be unsafe and banned.
Now we see even more laws which will further reduce the time spent with fathers who were more likely to play outdoors with children.
When these kids grow up they will be fearful and timid , exactly what the Feminist/ Marxists want , a populace easily intimidated and controlled.
I can’t understand women’s thinking not wanting the fathers in their children’s lives. They are happy to care for the children when they are together, never hear accusations of bad parenting. Mothers are happy for dads to do school drop off and pick up while they are out working, shopping etc. There is only opposition when the men leave them. Yet the Family Court do not consider the happy times children have with their dads, they are only interested the mother’s version & never do they ask the kids ‘ what do you want’?
Government, police, child safety & family court never consider the mental harm caused to the child when they are ripped from a parent they love. It’s a form of child abuse.
I had a young woman neighbour with two children, separated from the dad. Every other week they would go with their dad. Dad and mum were friends and dad would even check in on the house when she was away.
The kids grew up to be fine teenagers, well behaved and no mental scars from parents separating. If mums and dads could agree on what’s the best for the child there would be less trauma for the children.
About your first sentence and the reasons women do not want the father in their children's lives, the answer may be in the relationship these women had with their own father . As children themselves they may have witnessed conflict between their parents , the mother may have alienated them from their father as happens often. A young mind is easily influenced and the woman as a girl growing up would have seen a lot of anti male propaganda as well.
This brainwashing is then carried into adulthood and the woman refuses or is incapable of seeing men as anything other than evil.
My son basically stopped going to school by year 6.
My daughter was lucky to attend more than 50% of the time.
Everyone refused to assist me, from legal aid, the schools, the school district, the department of education and the education minister, they all created an endless cycle of referring me up the chain of command, once at the top I get referred to the beginning again.
Nobody wants to take responsibility. I suspect DHS was involved, and my children as adults confirmed this, but I was never contacted by them.
Not only that, the deadliest combination for children that puts high numbers of children at risk, is their mother with a biologically not related male.
In the past few years, Los Angeles has paid out large sums to extended family members for the death of a young child (always seems to be a boy) who was murdered by the mother and boyfriend. The story is always the same. Extended family members plead for intervention and it is ignored.
I have read quickly the proposed changes to family court act, one that stood out to me was changing the wording for breaching family court order, it was a parent can breach court order and withhold the children if it is reasonable. One reason could be if the parent did not understand the court order and did not return the child just because of a unfounded allegation against parent. As I understand it there would be no consequences or punishment.
This change would just legally normalise what currently happens with “contraventions” of family court orders. All too frequently the Registry Registrar will refuse to accept an “Application Contravention” (so therefore it does not appear in the annual family court report disclosure), especially if from a father. If you do get an Application Contravention accepted it invariably takes 3 to 6 months at a minimum for the first procedural hearing. Even if a contravention is found to have occurred, invariably there is no consequences, especially if the preparator “promises” not to contravene again.
Dreyfuss and Co suffer under the additional delusion that if there is no consequences for failing to comply with orders, the orders will still be complied with. If a person knows that there are no consequences for contravening orders, then there is no incentive to comply with orders. This is evidenced by the preponderance of fathers whos’ court ordered “visitation” with the children are routinely contravened without consequence.
Verity... Hell no. They are corrupt. I knew a couple of dedicated ladies that helped mothers whose children were taken by child protection authorities, police, and judges and handed over to paedophile fathers. In SA, Vic, and NSW the entire sysytem is corrupt.
I took this up with a colleague in London who told me it is generally recognised in child protection and child trafficking investigation circles that Australia is the global capital. Currently, I am trying to discover if cases I reported to the Director of Welfare forty years ago were actually acted upon.
I will not swear to accuracy on the above reports because I did not investigate them myself, but my intuition tells me they have substance. Quite apart from child abuse issues, I am aware that Australia's entire judicial/political system is corrupted beyond remedy. We will have to start all over again.
You are right to say that and the justice system needs serious reform. But politicians will do nothing and it is up to the people to rise up.
Australia's justice system is virtually unchanged since colonial times, it was a brutal and biased colonial system foisted onto us by the British masters of the day.
The same could be said of the political system both state and fed.
This is the 21st century why can't we have a justice system to suit the modern world?
But the parasites , AKA lawyers, magistrates , judges etc. are very happy with this closed shop, where a lawyer can work his way to the top and be a judge.
That should be the first thing to change, in more modern countries lawyers do not become judges , they are sourced from other walks of life.
Nothing will change unless people protest and this is getting harder , politicians hide from the public under the excuse of "security" and Parliament House Canberra is ringed by a security fence. .
You will get no argument from me, Ken. If we want change we will have to do it ourselves. But the system does not want change and it will fight us. Timing is out of our hands but, when the system's guardians get ill and die from the mRNA jab, the path will be clear to make change. And the first change must be to scrap representationalism and adopt genuine democracy, as this was defined by Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Acton, and the Irish Monks. Contrary to what we are told, there were many democracies throughout history so we have plently of ancient wisdom to draw from. Anyway, I have studied these and have documented how it can be done and will brook no attempts to retain elitism. Our basic philosophy must be, either we live under tyranny or die defeating it. Some of us will be lucky.
If we had a leader like Abraham Lincoln there might be some hope, he would not have tolerated the feminists. But where are the strong leaders we need today?
But I'm not sure what you mean by genuine democracy, if if is not
Lincoln nailed it with "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", meaning "an informed populace formulates all policy ad the public service implements it". No middle man. No parliament, politicians, elections, and no corruption. Just local, regional and national consensus. When Lincoln was assassinated, the Populist movement was formed to install genuine democracy. They, too, failed. The plutocrats overwhelmed them, just as they do today. There will be no new democrcies until the plutocrats are all dead.
Corruption is normal in the state of Queensland. A trial I was a witness for defence for, had a Qld police from Ethical Standards lie when he was a witness. This is in the court transcript. I also saw the female prosecutor change dates on evidence. I also saw Ethical Standards Police and Prosecution cherry pick evidence. Witnesses for prosecution were also known to perjure themselves with evidence presented proving they lied. Judge ignored this. Corruption is acceptable.
Kay, it is so lovely to encounter another human being whose eyes read the same landscape the same way. After we have won this war, and war it is, I will remember the name Kay as a sister-in-arms.
So sorry to hear your daughter is heading down the same destructive path as her mother, David. That is tragic. Re dad friendly lawyers, perhaps contact this group and see if they have any suggestions.
https://menslegalservice.org.au/. I know the key players here and they certainly are on side, although I gather they only have Brisbane lawyers at this stage in Qld.
Thanks Bettina. Your article has reminded me of the horrors I went through back in the late 1990’s when my ex-wife took my children from Canberra to Queensland against my will and there was nothing I could do about it. I lost contact with my children for many years and my relationship with my then 12 year old daughter never recovered. She is now in her mid-30’s and just ended her 10 year marriage with her husband and has stated she wants 100% custody of their two young girls. It looks as if these treacherous changes to the Family Law Act by despicable Labor will enable the return of those horrid days I endured back in the 1990’s. I feel for my son-in-law as he has a real battle ahead, and it may also threaten my future relationship with my granddaughters as my daughter blames everything bad in her life on me and already wants to deny me contact with them. :-(
Do you know any great 'Dad-friendly' Family Law lawyers on the Gold Coast?
I'd like to think we have a chance of getting them to pull back on the critical issue of joint parental responsibility - particularly since the government has lied about having support from key inquiries. It all depends on whether our people can persuade some of the cross bench Senators to demand changes.
Likely 100% - maybe minor amendments if anyone has the guts to put them up, but it'll go through, Labor control of the Reps and Greens support in the Senate of course. I wonder what Lambie will say and do? :-(
It's a disgrace that Women only have to say they fear for their safety without any evidence and the Father is treated like a criminal without any hope of seeing his Children.
Please read the story this morning about Darcy & Chloe Conley two beautiful children who died in 60 deg heat strapped in their car seats. The mother a drug addict known to the police & child safety was responsible. The Father could not have custody of the children because the mother made a complaint of Domestic Violence.
A sad loss of two innocent kids , the mother should be charged but will no doubt be treated very leniently and the feminists will downplay the story . They will try to protect the lie that children are safer with the mother.
It is hard to believe but true that all this woman had to do to get sole custody was make a complaint of domestic violence, which was I bet not even true, or greatly exaggerated.
The DV laws in all states now allow a woman to get DV orders without providing any evidence only that she fears that at some later date her partner may become violent.
Women caught onto this really quickly and now abuse the law and use it as a weapon.
Ken
Yesterday in the Brisbane Court Judge Appelgarth gave this mother 9 year sentence with time served she will be eligible for parole in 2024, this is about four and a half years for killing her babies. The judge had the option to give her 10 years where she would of had to serve 80% of her time. He stated he chose not to as she had a better chance of rehabilitation with a lesser sentence. The news hardly even mentioned the case, there was no candle light vigil for the babies, no outrage from Katrina Carol police Commissioner, no screaming out loud from anyone. Unfortunately all I saw was the judge comment how drugs were the reason why the babies were locked in the car.
As usual when a mother kills her kids she gets off lightly , the tragedy is that if the kids had been in the care of the father they would still be alive, why isn't the media making a big story about this issue?
The Family Court judge who gave custody to this woman is largely responsible and if we had a modern justice system with full accountability for all judicial officers then this judge would be on trial, in the same way a doctor could be accused of malpractice if his actions caused a death .
And for this judge to blame the drugs is wrong for this gave the woman an excuse, she is an adult and it was her decision to take the drugs , very irresponsible for a person with 2 small children .
Feminism has created young women with no sense of responsibility for their actions and comments like this judge made do not help.
A similar case happened in WA , a woman was given custody to her 2 small girls even though the father protested and showed evidence that the woman was not mentally stable, the court did not listen but he was right, the girls were killed by the mother .
I don't think comments are open on your spectator article yet. I will comment when I get the chance. I spent an extra seven or eight years in a dead marriage because I knew that the family law situation would simply screw me. The financial workover would have been one thing but to lose the day-to-day contact with my kids would have been soul destroying. I managed to hang on long enough to get my youngest to 16 years old before she dumped me. I can only imagine how devastating it is for Dads who are sliced out of their kids lives when the kids are young. I was lucky, in a way.
That's a tragic story, Elizabeth. But so typical of what is happening everywhere now. I am pleased it forced you to see the light.
If anyone reading this has a subscription to Spectator Australia, can you please urgently post a comment under my article, which has just been published? We need to impress on readers just how many families will be affected by these drastic changes to family law. https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/a-return-to-winner-takes-all-custody-battles/
Years ago, Attorney Gloria Allred used every media outlet at her disposal to destroy the reputation of a young man. The young man in question had impregnated a young woman who worked for his family restaurant. He wanted to be part of the baby's life. The mother had the opportunity to attend a prestigious university on the east coast - might have been Harvard. Allred used every tool to paint a picture of a low class individual because, Good God, he was only an employee of a family restaurant. Meanwhile, the woman was painted us this virtuous young woman with so much ahead of her. At the time in California you had to get a court order to take children out of state if the other parent opposed it. Allred argued in courts, and the media, that of course she should be allowed to take the baby with her to the east coast even thought it would deny the ability for the young man to truly interact with his child. I wrote a letter to the LA Times, which I canceled long ago, stating that if the young woman was intelligent enough to get into Harvard, she surely could get into a university in California which has many top schools, and that should be the compromise. It was pure selfishness on the part of the young woman, but she was young and that is normal. However, to have an attorney go after and destroy the young man in the media was unforgivable. I stopped referring myself as a feminist ever since.
Mention is made of children's SAFETY which is what this is all about, but haven't we gone too far trying to protect children .
Children today are so overprotected that it is making them neurotic, they are wrapped in cotton wool, not allowed to take even the slightest risk.
Kids used to ride their bikes to school even in primary school, now most are chauffeur driven by parents, kids used to swim in lakes and rivers, climb trees etc. Now this is deemed to be unsafe and banned.
Now we see even more laws which will further reduce the time spent with fathers who were more likely to play outdoors with children.
When these kids grow up they will be fearful and timid , exactly what the Feminist/ Marxists want , a populace easily intimidated and controlled.
I can’t understand women’s thinking not wanting the fathers in their children’s lives. They are happy to care for the children when they are together, never hear accusations of bad parenting. Mothers are happy for dads to do school drop off and pick up while they are out working, shopping etc. There is only opposition when the men leave them. Yet the Family Court do not consider the happy times children have with their dads, they are only interested the mother’s version & never do they ask the kids ‘ what do you want’?
Government, police, child safety & family court never consider the mental harm caused to the child when they are ripped from a parent they love. It’s a form of child abuse.
I had a young woman neighbour with two children, separated from the dad. Every other week they would go with their dad. Dad and mum were friends and dad would even check in on the house when she was away.
The kids grew up to be fine teenagers, well behaved and no mental scars from parents separating. If mums and dads could agree on what’s the best for the child there would be less trauma for the children.
About your first sentence and the reasons women do not want the father in their children's lives, the answer may be in the relationship these women had with their own father . As children themselves they may have witnessed conflict between their parents , the mother may have alienated them from their father as happens often. A young mind is easily influenced and the woman as a girl growing up would have seen a lot of anti male propaganda as well.
This brainwashing is then carried into adulthood and the woman refuses or is incapable of seeing men as anything other than evil.
Without going into too many details,
My son basically stopped going to school by year 6.
My daughter was lucky to attend more than 50% of the time.
Everyone refused to assist me, from legal aid, the schools, the school district, the department of education and the education minister, they all created an endless cycle of referring me up the chain of command, once at the top I get referred to the beginning again.
Nobody wants to take responsibility. I suspect DHS was involved, and my children as adults confirmed this, but I was never contacted by them.
There's plenty of evidence showing sexual abuse is more common by mum's boyfriend than the natural dad.
Mothers are by far the biggest killers of children.
Not only that, the deadliest combination for children that puts high numbers of children at risk, is their mother with a biologically not related male.
In the past few years, Los Angeles has paid out large sums to extended family members for the death of a young child (always seems to be a boy) who was murdered by the mother and boyfriend. The story is always the same. Extended family members plead for intervention and it is ignored.
Boys are punished more severely and are more likely to get blamed
In two of the stories, the boys were tortured because the moms believed they were gay.
I remember that
Mothers kill more children
Yes a woman in Queensland killed 7 children, and just recently in WA a mother killed her 2 daughters.
But society and the justice system always goes easy on them, all the woman has to say is she was stressed or mentally ill and she gets sympathy.
But if the father kills his kids it's a different story , then there is public outrage.
that's interesting. I haven't looked at that part.
I have read quickly the proposed changes to family court act, one that stood out to me was changing the wording for breaching family court order, it was a parent can breach court order and withhold the children if it is reasonable. One reason could be if the parent did not understand the court order and did not return the child just because of a unfounded allegation against parent. As I understand it there would be no consequences or punishment.
This change would just legally normalise what currently happens with “contraventions” of family court orders. All too frequently the Registry Registrar will refuse to accept an “Application Contravention” (so therefore it does not appear in the annual family court report disclosure), especially if from a father. If you do get an Application Contravention accepted it invariably takes 3 to 6 months at a minimum for the first procedural hearing. Even if a contravention is found to have occurred, invariably there is no consequences, especially if the preparator “promises” not to contravene again.
Dreyfuss and Co suffer under the additional delusion that if there is no consequences for failing to comply with orders, the orders will still be complied with. If a person knows that there are no consequences for contravening orders, then there is no incentive to comply with orders. This is evidenced by the preponderance of fathers whos’ court ordered “visitation” with the children are routinely contravened without consequence.
Verity... Hell no. They are corrupt. I knew a couple of dedicated ladies that helped mothers whose children were taken by child protection authorities, police, and judges and handed over to paedophile fathers. In SA, Vic, and NSW the entire sysytem is corrupt.
I took this up with a colleague in London who told me it is generally recognised in child protection and child trafficking investigation circles that Australia is the global capital. Currently, I am trying to discover if cases I reported to the Director of Welfare forty years ago were actually acted upon.
I will not swear to accuracy on the above reports because I did not investigate them myself, but my intuition tells me they have substance. Quite apart from child abuse issues, I am aware that Australia's entire judicial/political system is corrupted beyond remedy. We will have to start all over again.
You are right to say that and the justice system needs serious reform. But politicians will do nothing and it is up to the people to rise up.
Australia's justice system is virtually unchanged since colonial times, it was a brutal and biased colonial system foisted onto us by the British masters of the day.
The same could be said of the political system both state and fed.
This is the 21st century why can't we have a justice system to suit the modern world?
But the parasites , AKA lawyers, magistrates , judges etc. are very happy with this closed shop, where a lawyer can work his way to the top and be a judge.
That should be the first thing to change, in more modern countries lawyers do not become judges , they are sourced from other walks of life.
Nothing will change unless people protest and this is getting harder , politicians hide from the public under the excuse of "security" and Parliament House Canberra is ringed by a security fence. .
You will get no argument from me, Ken. If we want change we will have to do it ourselves. But the system does not want change and it will fight us. Timing is out of our hands but, when the system's guardians get ill and die from the mRNA jab, the path will be clear to make change. And the first change must be to scrap representationalism and adopt genuine democracy, as this was defined by Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Acton, and the Irish Monks. Contrary to what we are told, there were many democracies throughout history so we have plently of ancient wisdom to draw from. Anyway, I have studied these and have documented how it can be done and will brook no attempts to retain elitism. Our basic philosophy must be, either we live under tyranny or die defeating it. Some of us will be lucky.
If we had a leader like Abraham Lincoln there might be some hope, he would not have tolerated the feminists. But where are the strong leaders we need today?
But I'm not sure what you mean by genuine democracy, if if is not
Lincoln nailed it with "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", meaning "an informed populace formulates all policy ad the public service implements it". No middle man. No parliament, politicians, elections, and no corruption. Just local, regional and national consensus. When Lincoln was assassinated, the Populist movement was formed to install genuine democracy. They, too, failed. The plutocrats overwhelmed them, just as they do today. There will be no new democrcies until the plutocrats are all dead.
Corruption is normal in the state of Queensland. A trial I was a witness for defence for, had a Qld police from Ethical Standards lie when he was a witness. This is in the court transcript. I also saw the female prosecutor change dates on evidence. I also saw Ethical Standards Police and Prosecution cherry pick evidence. Witnesses for prosecution were also known to perjure themselves with evidence presented proving they lied. Judge ignored this. Corruption is acceptable.
Kay, it is so lovely to encounter another human being whose eyes read the same landscape the same way. After we have won this war, and war it is, I will remember the name Kay as a sister-in-arms.
So sorry to hear your daughter is heading down the same destructive path as her mother, David. That is tragic. Re dad friendly lawyers, perhaps contact this group and see if they have any suggestions.
https://menslegalservice.org.au/. I know the key players here and they certainly are on side, although I gather they only have Brisbane lawyers at this stage in Qld.
Thanks Bettina. Your article has reminded me of the horrors I went through back in the late 1990’s when my ex-wife took my children from Canberra to Queensland against my will and there was nothing I could do about it. I lost contact with my children for many years and my relationship with my then 12 year old daughter never recovered. She is now in her mid-30’s and just ended her 10 year marriage with her husband and has stated she wants 100% custody of their two young girls. It looks as if these treacherous changes to the Family Law Act by despicable Labor will enable the return of those horrid days I endured back in the 1990’s. I feel for my son-in-law as he has a real battle ahead, and it may also threaten my future relationship with my granddaughters as my daughter blames everything bad in her life on me and already wants to deny me contact with them. :-(
Do you know any great 'Dad-friendly' Family Law lawyers on the Gold Coast?
What are the chances of passage, Tina? Any ideas at this point?
I'd like to think we have a chance of getting them to pull back on the critical issue of joint parental responsibility - particularly since the government has lied about having support from key inquiries. It all depends on whether our people can persuade some of the cross bench Senators to demand changes.
Likely 100% - maybe minor amendments if anyone has the guts to put them up, but it'll go through, Labor control of the Reps and Greens support in the Senate of course. I wonder what Lambie will say and do? :-(